4 Thus Cyril of Jerusalem, in the sixth book of his Catecheses, §§ 27 and 30, tells us how Manes fled into Mesopotamia, and was met there by that shield of righteousness (o#plon dikaiosu/nhj) Bishop Archelaus, and was refuted by him in the presence of a number of Greek philosophers, who had been brought together as judges of the discussion. Epiphanius, in his Heresies, lxvi., and again in his work De Mensuris et Poderibus, § 20, makes reference to the same occasion, and gives some excerpts from the Acts of the Disputation. And there are also passages of greater or less importance in Jerome (De vir. illustr., ch. 72), Socrates (Hist. Eccles., i. 22), Heraclianus bishop of Chalcedon (as found in Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. xcv.), Petrus Siculus (Historia Manichaeorum, pp. 25, 35, 37), Photius (Adversus Manichaeos, book i., edited in the Biblioth. Coislin., Montfaucon, pp. 356, 358), and the anonymous authors of the Libellus Synodicus, ch 27, and the Historia Haereseos Manichaeorum in the Codex Regius of Turin. [See Cyril's text in Routh, R. S., vol. v. pp. 198-205.]

5 As by Zacagnius at Rome, in 1698, in his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum Ecclesiae Graecae ac Latinae; by Fabricius, in the Spicilegium Sanctorum Patrum Saeculi, iii., in his edition of Hippolytus, etc.

1 See vol. ii. p. 342, Elucidation II., this series. Note also, in the same volume, what is said, pp. 166-167.

10 At this point begins the portion of the work edited by Valesius from the Codex Bobiensis, which is preserved now in the Ambrosian Library.

11 The Codex Bobiensis reads Adda Turbonem. This Adda, or Addas, as the Greek gives it below in ch. xi., was one of those disciples of Manes whom he charged with the dissemination of his heretical opinions in the East, as we see from ch. xi.

14 On the attention paid by the primitive Church to the duties of hospitality, see Tertullian, De Praescriptionibus, ch. 20 [vol. iii. p. 252, this series]: Gregory Nazianzenus, in his First Invective against Julian; also Priorius, De literis canonicis, ch. 5, etc.; and Thomassin, De Tesseris hospitalitatis, ch. 26.

15 In the text, ignotum; in the Codex Bobiensis, ignoratum.

16 This letter, along with the reply of Marcellus, is given by Epiphanius in his Heresies, n. 6, from which the Greek text is taken.

33 The text is simply kai\ au0th\n probeblhke/nai to\n prw=ton a@nqrwpon, ta\ pe/nte stoixe=ia. The Latin, with emendations from the Codex Bobiensis and Epiphanius, gives quâ virtute circumdedit primum hominem, quae sunt quinque elementa, etc., = with which power He begirt the first man, which is the same as the five elements, etc. With slight differences the Codex Bobiensis reads quâ circumdedit, and the Codex Casinensis, quae virtute. Petavius pointed out that there is probably an omission in the text here. And from a passage in Epiphanius, Hoer., lxvi. n. 45, it has been proposed to fill out the sentence thus: proba/llein e\c e9autou= du/namin mhte0ra th=j zwh=j, kai au0th\n probeblhke/nai to\n prw=ton a@nqrwpon, au0th\n de\ th\n mhte/ra th=j zwh=j to/n te prw=ton a@nqrwpon ta\ pe/nte stoixei=a. The sense might then be that the good Father put forth from Himself a power called the Mother of Life, that this Mother of Life put forth the first man, and that the said Mother of Life and the first man put forth (or constituted) the five elements. See the note in Routh's Reliquiae Sacrae, v. p. 49.

45 a0po/krousin. The Codex Casinensis has apocrisin; but the Codex Bobiensis gives apocrusin.

46 The text gives th=j yuxh=j. But from the old Latin version, which has animarum, we may conjecture that tw=n yuxw=n was read.

47 The Latin version has "vir perfectus",-a reading which is due apparently to the fact that the author had mistaken the a0h/r of the Greek for a0nh/r [See note 2, p. 176, supra]

48 o9 qerismo\j a@rxwn. The version of Petavius has "Sic et princeps alter, messor appellatus." Perhaps the reading should be o9 qerismou= a@rxwn.

49 loimo/n. Other codices give famem, as reading limo/n, famine.

50 e0a\n de\ ta\ a@nw th=j r9i/zhj po/nw| saleu/sh. It may be also = And if the upper parts of the root shake under the exertion.

51 pw=j metaggi/zetai h9 yuxh\ ei0j pe/nte sw/mata. But the Codex Bobiensis reads transferuntur; and the Latin version gives "quomodo et animae in alia quoque corpora transfunduntur" = how the souls are also transfused into other bodies.

52 The text gives kelefw=n, which is spoken of in Migne as an unknown animal, though ke/lefoj (thus accentuated) occurs in ecclesiastical writers in the sense of a leper. It is proposed to read e/lefantiw=n, "of elephants;" and so the Codex Bobiensis gives "elephantorum corpora," and Codex Casinensis has "in elefantia eorum corpora," which is probably an error for "in elephantiacorum corpora." Routh suggests e0lefanteiwn. [Reliqu. Sac., vol. v. p. 58.]